Let me start with a tribute to civil society in Africa. Across our continent, throughout the last century, the struggle of civil society has been central to the great achievements of Africa.

Africa's independence emerged partly from civil society. The first generation of indpendent African leaders organised from within civil society, building national and international coalitions. Independence movements in much of Africa, in the 1940s and '50s, are a clear case of 'primary mobilisation': mass non-violent movements of people pursuing their interests. In Ghana, Kamei Nkrumah pioneered what he called 'postitive action', based on Gandhian principles. The ANC in South Africa used exclusively non-violent means such as stay-at-homes and strikes during this period, also inspired by Gandhi. And it was a truly international movement: the leaders of different national liberation movements worked together, and worked with friends and allies in India, in Europe and in America.

It was the African student movement in North America, the Caribean, and Great Britain, which met in Manchester in 1941 led by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and Jommo Kenyatta, you carried the torch of pan-Africanism to Africa and influenced the struggle against colonialism with pan-African ideas.

My country's struggle against Italian fascist occupation owes a debt of gratitude to the pan-Africanist movement in the continent and abroad in mobilising international and African support.

More recently, the pressure for democratization in Africa has arisen partly from civil society. Although democracy in Africa is still a 'work in progress', it remains a challenge and an agenda for partnership to African political leadership and civil society.

This meeting is a landmark for the OAU. It marks a particularly auspicious moment, at the birth of the African Union. Civil society provided the inspriation and momentum for Pan-African independence fifty years ago. It is only fitting that civil society should play an essential role in the consolidation of the principles and objectives of the African Union in the 21st century.

This meeting reflects the emerging commitment of the OAU to work with civil society. Dr. Salim's leadership is providing African CSO'S and government's with the opportunity to meet together and plan for a more productive and constructive collaboration in the implemetnation of the African Union. We owe him our gratitude.

I would also like to make special mention of our gratitude to the Economic Commission for Africa and its Executive Secretary, Mr. K.Y. Amoako, in particular. The ECA has led the way in furthering the systematic and effective engagement of civil society in key policy-making forums. For example, the African Development Forum has included CSOs as major participants.

As we move forward to the consolidation of the African Union, we anticipate that civil society's role will become broader and more intense. The key elements for Africa's future governance and economic development, namely the rule of law, accountable government, an educated and informed populace, and a people-friendly developmental state, will increasingly be the challenge to the agenda of a vibrant and autonomous civil society.

In the past, Africa's leaders have arisen from civil society. In the future, we can be confident that they will continue to do so.

Ours is a diverse continent. Each of our countries in unique. Our traditions are richly varied. Our systems of governance are different. Our civil society is also very varied. It would be a mistake to try to limit this richness, variety, inventiveness and flexibility by imposing some form of academic definition of 'civil society' on this vibrant social reality. It is important for us to have a broad understanding of what civil society is. But is is also important to look at how civil society functions in the African context.

And for that we need to begin with a working reference of the concept of civil society. In the words of one African observer, it is:

'the realm of organized social life that is open, voluntary, self-generating, at least partially self-supporting, autonomous from the state, and bound by a legal order or set of shared rules.'

The distinction between political society and civil society should be widely recognised. Any activities such as forming trade unions, publishing newspapers, promoting himan rights, may have political implications. But such activities are not involved in exercising state power or contesting it through election. For this reason, political parties seek power through the state, while civil society seeks, among its objectives influencing public policies. We must bear this crucial distinction in mind.

In seeking to influence public policy many civil society organisations are looking for real, substantial social progress. One effective way of achieving this is through engagement with democratic political processes. This means talking to political parties, trying to influence their programmes and manifestos. This is the democratic right of citizens in a free society. A civil society organisation truly concerned with, say, women's rights or the environment would be betraying its member if it did not do this.

The democratic political parties and civil society ahve important interests that converge on key issues and core values. Democracy and civil society are both concerned with establishing accountable, people-friendly government. They are concerned with making and maintaining social contracts between governments and citizens.

They should be equally active in promoting informed and effective citizenship an deepening the social and cultural reservoir of tolerance, respect and peaceful settlement of disputes.

Let me turn to the relationship between civil society and the state. Rather than theorizing about this relationship, let me look at how it functions under the different conditions represented by four different kinds of regime in Africa:

• one, an effective state;
• two, a less democratic and/or weak state;
• three, liberation-movement-created regimes; and
• four, weak or collapsing state regimes.

Let me now identify the characteristics of each state typology and what that implies to civil society.

In an effective democratic state, the govrnment has the capacity and the will to establish the rule of law, to provide basic social services, and to be responsive to the wishes and the needs of the population. It is also a state which allows non-governmental actors to provide social service to voice the demand and intersts of especially the poor and the marginalized. Under those conditions civil society and government know their respective roles and can work in partnership where there are comparative advantages in a complementary way. In short, where an effective state provides wider scope for political and legal space free and and constructive operations of civil society organisations are possible.

The first and probably the most important role for civil society is grassroots 'primary mobilisation'. This is the mobilisation of ordinary people to pursue their legitimate interests. Most of this kind of civil society activity is invisible to outside observers. These grassroots organisation often do not seek funds from outside. They may not seek formal registration; they may not have formal constitutions and procedures. They can range from small voluntary associations such as rotating credit associations or groups of neighbours nd relatives who come together to provide funds for funerals, to broad-based popular movements for women's rights, or squatters' rights, or other causes that people feel deeply about. Any organisation primarily set up to serve its members' interests, such as trade unions, count as primary organisations of this kind.

In a democratic society with functioning government institutions, there is much space for these groups to form, to organize and to influence public debate and policy. This role--influencing policy--can be as important and indeed complementary to a legitimate governmental role of exercising power.

Another role for civil soceity is what we may call 'secondary activism'. This is the professional civil society organisation at work. The specialist human rights, development, environment and advocacy groups that are actie in liberal democracies. Thei activities are divers, and include engaging in policy dialogue, adversarial criticism, campaigning and implementation of welfare and development programmes.

These are organisations with constitutions, that are registered and operate under specific laws, staffed by professionals. Some may be run by volunteers; many are run by salaried staff. Newspapers count as secondary organisations under this definition.

These types of organisations are highly visible. They may receive public funding or aid funds from abroad. Because they follow a model that is well-developed and well-recognised in western countreis, because they can receive donor funds and implement projects and because their professional staff have the languages and the skills to interact with donors, these are the kinds of civil society organisations that are most favoured in the international sphere. But we must be careful to recognise that they function best in the context of a well-developed set of 'primary movements', so that they are held accountable to ordinary citizens. We must be careful to avoid the problem of 'donorism', whereby they respond to the demands of their donors, at the expence of accountability to their constituencies.

Where we are faced with states with less democratic systems, the role of civil society is rather different. The opportunities are less and the obstacles are greater. In some parts of Africa there is a tendency towards autocratic style of rule or a movement regime in one form or another. Let us examine each of these in turn.

First, let us look at the autocratic regime. In these countries, patronage. is one of the main mechanisms for managing power. In the useful categorisation developed by Professor Mahmoud Mamdani, these regrimes are ruling 'subjects' in an hierarchical, neo-traditional manner, rather than governing a republic of 'citizens'.

Civil society in such countries is not only pursiuing its range of legitimate activities, but is engaged in a much wider enterprise: it is trying to exercise freedom of association and freedom of expression. The exercise of these civil rights requires a state that respects the fundamental freedoms of its people as citizens. Civil society organisations of all kinds, by their very existence, push in this direction. They are trying to reconfigure the nature of society, to change it from one based on 'subjects' to one respecting 'citizens'.

In such a situation, civil society tends to be a phenomenon concentrated in urban centres among relatively well-educated people, and in the industrial and mining sectors of the economy. These categories of people command relatively few votes and are often castigated as 'discontented elites' by governments. It is true that many 'secondary' civil society activitists in these countries may struggle to find a broad-based constituency and may be out of touch with the concerns of people in rural areas. But their activities are an important part of the evolution of a democratic society.

Now, let us turn to former liberation fronts, now in power--a phenomenon we see in many countries. Africa is unique in that so many of its governments have emerged from liberation struggles of one form or another--struggles against colonialism and Apartheid, or against repressive post-colonial regimes. I am referring to the wider phenomenon of 'movement-governments' htat is characteristic of much of Africa.

These regimes how a tendency to blur the separation between party and the state, which very often leads to the politicisation of state institutions. The politicisation also extends into the business sector an deven into the civil society. Often, movement-governments may implement progressive social policies and pursue policies that further the interests of large sections of the population, such as rural people and women. But they are slow to democratise and slow to change. When the political avenues of democratisation are restricted or closed, civil society reflective as it is of divergent interests and views may appear to assume an adversarial role with the government. This leads some governments to constrain or repress civil society organisations.

We see, however, across Africa movement-regimes are undergoing transitions. If they are successful at that, they mve towards a freer and more open society in which power is contested in democratic elections.

In these circumstances, the challenge of civil society organisations is to stimulate and facilitate public discourse on policy issues. This is perhaps as important as the free and open contestation for national leadership. It is vital that public policies are open to consultation with the public, and especially with key civil society groups such as academics, journalists, trade unions and NGOs, as well as the private sector. This sort of engagement with stakeholders on policy dialogue is emergin as an important indicator of good governance.

This sort of wider engagement with civil society should be a means of broadening the base of movement-governments, making it possible for them to embrace change and welcome democratisation. It is a way of creating a constuctive (but not uncritical) relationship between the state and civil society, for the benefit of the nation.

Policy engagement with civil society can be seen as a mechanism for establishing social contracts on key issues for national policy, such as food security, fighting HIV/AIDS, providing education, and other key social and developmental goals.

Before moving on, let me underline the importance of civil society involvement in the struggle to overcome HIV/AIDS. This will be the focus of one of our sessions in this conference. But HIV/AIDS cannot be reduced to a single issue separate from all the otehr pressing questions of development, peace, human rights and governance. HIV/AIDS is the single biggest threat to this continent. It is a fundamental survival issues. The issue must be raised everywhere. Unless we overcome HIV/AIDS, all our efforts to achieve other important aims are in vain. And, as was stressed repeatedly at the ADF 2000 in this conference hall at the end of last year, overcoming HIV/AIDS requires leadership by all parts of society. Without the full and active participation of civil society, in leadership roles, we cannot confront and defeat this pandemic that threatens us all.

Let me return to the main theme of civil society and the state.

Our last category of states in Africa includes weak states, either collapsed states, or countries in conflict, or struggling to emerge from conflict.

The lack of basic physical security in these states is the single biggest obstacle to the emergence of civil society. Without basic security and the rule of law, civil society cannot function. Individuals are forced to rely on whoever can provide them with physical protection and basic livelihood. There is no possibility of social contract. This is the single greates illustration of the symbiosis between civil society and the state. Without the state, civil society cannot exist. In fact, what we see across the world is that as the state becomes stronger, better able to deliver services and provide governance, civil society becomes stronger.

The major aim of civil society in conflicted or collapsed states is to restore basic security, the rule of law, and service provision. This calls for a partnership with all parties, both national and international.

The international linkages of civil society organisations raise some of the most difficult questions, relevant to all the political contexts I have described. A significant number of civil society organisation in Africa is externally-dependent: they rely on foreign funds. As we all know, those who provide money exercise enormous influence in both subtle and unsubtle ways.

Perhaps the most insidious effect of external orientation is that a new de facto definition of 'civil society' is emerging. Civil society' becomes what donors can fund. Donors like to fund service providers and non-political organisations, except of course where they have their own political agendas, in which case they will fund anything that fits. Donors are entitled to their own criteria for deciding on who to fund. But we must not assume that because donors will not fund an organisation, it is, therefore, not 'civil society.' Unfortunately, in some countries where the very language of 'civil society' has been introduced by donors, local people ar now talking about 'civil societies'--in the plural--as though civil society is nothing more than those organisations that get donor funding.

We must not assume that civil society organisations are the same as NGOs. There is a tension between civil society and NGOs, especially international NGos and local NGOs that rely on external money. There are dangers when international NGOs, especially service subcontractors, try to move into the space for civil society.

This danger is particularly present when they move into areas of governance and the judiciary. First, they usually do not have the sensitivity and competence to work effectively in these areas. Second, they may end up monopolising the space for civil society, and distorting or stunting the growth of civil society.

Fortunately there are some high quality international partners, who can seriously engage with civil society in Africa. But we all know that not all aid is like this. One important task for civil society in Africa is monitoring the quality of aid, and trying to promote best practices among donors--while also exposing the worst practices of some donors and putting a stop to them.

There is another kind of international linkage that is increasingly ky to civil society development across Africa. This is the strengthening of of links between civil society organisations within the continent: the development of a truly pan-African civil society.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, civil society leadership and civil society models of social mobilisation contributed the basis for Africa's struggles for independence and democracy. Pan-Africanism was a civil society project: a mass movement for social progress and emancipation.

The African Union needs to be animated by the same civil society mobilisation. To date, the African Union has been an almost entirely state-led process. The OAU represents its Member States. Civil society needs a voice too.

Up to now, the African Union has had relatively little input from either civil society or from the private sector. But this can change: the Constitutive Act of the African Union contains a number of provisions that can ensure much greater participation by these stakeholders. For example, the preamble refers to 'the need to build a partnership between governments and all segments of civil society, in particular women, youth and the private sector....' If we examine some of the specific articles of the Act, we can see opportunities for civil society that we must pursue.

(Article 3(g) refers to promoting 'democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance,' This is a very general provision, but it is made more specific in Article 4(p), which challenges African governments, with condemnation and rejection of unconstitutional changes of governments.' This point is reiterated in Article 30, which suspends membership of the Union to 'governments which came to power through unconstitutional means.' However, Article 20 on the AU Commission makes no mention of structures for consultation with civil society, while Article 22 envisages only 'the Economic, Social and Cultural Council' which is to be 'composed of different social and professional groups of the Member States of the Union'--a formulation that could be interpreted to endorse only weak CSO participation, possibly subject to government nomination.)

Potentially, the transition to the African Union will represent the most significant transformation in the nature of the African state since independence. If this is to succeed, and if it is to represent a progressive step towards the full emancipation of the African continent, it is essential that civil society is present as a full and active partner.

The relationship between Africa's states, the African Union, and civil society is one of the main challenges of the coming decade. We increasingly recognise that the principal role for the state is to provide an enabling environment for citizens to utilise their freedoms. The process of forging the African Union can provide the framework for a new, continent-wide social contract between governments and citizens, mediated by civil society, to work towards key goals.

The principal areas, I humbly suggest, we must target are three:

1. Human rights and democracy
2. Peace
3. HIV/AIDS.

These must not exclude other important areas such as food security, education and information technology. But they are absolute priorities for effective and sustained civil society engagement, leading to new social contracts and partnership. In each of these areas, we will be seeking clear, monitorable commitments by governments and the African Union, and a role for civil society in pursuing these goals and monitoring progress.

In conclusion, this meeting is held at a key juncture in Africa's progress towards democratisation, unity and development. The active role and full participation of civil society is absolutely essential to the success of every progressive venture undertaken in this continent. The advance of civil society is in the short and long term interest of the state as teh building of a credible democratic state is in the interest of civil society. A principles, transparent, autonomous, constructive partnerships between the state, civil society and African institutions based on the rule of law is a guarantee for Africa's peace, security and development.

I thank you.

• OAU CSO Conference Background Paper: English | French
• OAU
• UNECA
• UNDP
• InterAfrica Group